Former Consultant of Barseng Beglaryan Questioned in Flash Case

The Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan continues the trial of Barseng Beglaryan, owner of the "Flash" company, at the Avan and Nor-Nork location. Present in court are the defendants Barseng Beglaryan, Hrayer Hovsepyan, defense attorney Nikolay Hakobyan, and victim Arman Mkrtumyan. The prosecutor in the case is Abgar Arakelyan.

It is noteworthy that Barseng Beglaryan is charged with committing violence against Arman Mkrtumyan during March-April 2016, as well as threatening to use violence that posed a danger to life and health, thereby causing significant harm to his legal interests.

According to factual data, a large-scale theft of property took place at "Flash Motors" LLC, which belongs to N. Beglaryan, in 2015. The owner of the company and his relatives accused the former commercial director of "Flash Motors" LLC and demanded compensation for the allegedly incurred property damage. Hrayer Hovsepyan is also charged with using violence against Arman Mkrtumyan during the same period.

During today's court session, the witness Ashot Martirosyan presented himself. In response to a question from the court, he stated that he recognizes Barseng Beglaryan, who is the father of his student friends Hayk and Narek Beglaryan, and had also been his supervisor for some time.

Ashot Martirosyan recounted that on the day of the incident he was with Narek Beglaryan. "Narek asked me to enter the 'Flash' office, mentioning that there was a discussion regarding shortages that we attended before it ended, and we went about our business." According to the witness, later on, the defendants Barseng Beglaryan and Hrayer Hovsepyan also joined the meeting.

Answering questions from the prosecutor, Ashot Martirosyan stated that he did not meet anyone before reaching the conference room, as he went with Narek, stopping the car most likely at the opposite stop. "I can't say whether there were people at that moment, but I remember that Arman, Surik, and Hayk Beglaryan were present, then Barseng came, followed by Hrayer," he noted.

When asked by the prosecutor whether a conversation took place among the victim and others at that time, the witness could not respond definitively. "I can't say whether it was a Q&A or not; primarily, Suren Mkhitaryan was talking, and Hayk was responding." The witness also pointed out that after Barseng, no one else came other than Hrayer, and the meeting lasted over an hour. "I don't remember the content in detail; the general conversation was about shortages, mainly a Q&A where Arman presented what had happened. I only went because my friend asked me to, so I attended the meeting."

In response to another question from the prosecutor about whether he heard any allegations against Arman or Hayk, the witness replied negatively. He also was not aware if threats or violence had been made against the victim, Arman Mkrtumyan. "I did not hear any allegations against Arman or Hayk. Hrayer left about twenty minutes after arriving and then did not return. There were no monetary or property demands in my presence; it could be possible that something happened while I was out and in the room," he added.

When asked about the extent of the damage, the witness recalled that discussions at the time were about tens of millions.

Prosecutor Abgar Arakelyan noted that another victim in the case had stated in her testimony that Hrayer made a $20,000 demand from her related to the shortage and asked for her apartment to be mortgaged at a bank belonging to Barseng's son. According to this testimony, the witness Ashot Martirosyan was present, but he could not recall such a thing, saying, "I was absent briefly; I can't say if it happened during my absence or not."

In response to Abgar Arakelyan's question, Ashot Martirosyan also emphasized that he had been questioned twice during the preliminary investigation, did not participate in any confrontations, and no one had told him what testimony to give.

The victim, Arman Mkrtumyan, also questioned witness Ashot Martirosyan, inquiring where he currently works. Martirosyan mentioned that he works at "B-H Brand" company, part of which belongs to Barseng Beglaryan and the other to Araik Harutyunyan. Regarding Mkrtumyan's remark that it was actually Beglaryan who appointed him as the director, the witness responded, "I am the director of the Yerevan branch, appointed by the company's general director, Armen Petrosyan."

Mkrtumyan also asked about the current relationship Martirosyan has with Narek and Hayk Beglaryan. The witness noted that he has maintained a friendly relationship with them since their student years. When the victim inquired about his position on the day of the incident, the witness replied, "At that time, I was still the director of the company, but I might also have been Barseng Beglaryan's consultant; I don’t remember if I had already left or not."

Judge Davit Harutyunyan also posed questions to witness Ashot Martirosyan, curious if he had seen a weapon attached to Hrayer Hovsepyan’s belt. The judge clarified that according to the victim's testimony, he saw a pistol attached to Hrayer's belt as he approached the hanger, while Suren noted that the gun had been pointed at him during threats. In response, the witness stated, "I did not see a weapon; I do not remember such a thing."

At the end of the witness's questioning, prosecutor Abgar Arakelyan requested the court to publish the witness’s pre-trial testimony, emphasizing that there are significant contradictions between it and the testimony given in court. "During the preliminary investigation, witness Ashot Martirosyan described a situation where Hrayer Hovsepyan and Arman Mkrtumyan left the consultation room simultaneously, while he now not only does not mention this but also denies it," he argued.

Defense attorney Nikolay Hakobyan indicated that while he does not oppose the request, he believes there are no significant contradictions as the witness corrected them in his second testimony.

The presiding judge, after hearing both parties, decided to grant the request. At this moment, the witness's pre-trial testimony is being published.